Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #693827

Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

Show all headers | View raw

ddddddddddddddddd

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:40:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
solving muon magnetic moment anomaly
11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
 --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
 --- end Quote --- 
  
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 


On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:41:50 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
static electricity makes no sense as removal of electrons Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 

How is that a proof the electron = muon? 

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 

/\ 
O 

Where the leafs start out as || 

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 



Famous Experimental Proof done in Denmark, 2014

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best
 way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000

H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory

The below is a famous experiment of 2014, very famous because it opens a flood gate of new understanding of both Physics and of Chemistry for it proves these 5 points of issue:: 

1) That in Electricity Magnetism there is only a force of attraction, and all scientists were confused because what they thought was "repel" is merely a "denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion" for exclusion is not the same as repel. 

2) The real electron of atoms is a 105 MeV particle called the muon and the Real-proton is 840 MeV 

3) The particle that is .5MeV we always thought was the electron way back since JJ Thomson in 1897, turns out, that this .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, which is a photon or neutrino with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

4) The Real Electron and Real Proton rarely ever escape a atom, but what does escape and what is in almost all transactions of atoms is the monopole which can be either +1 or -1 of .5MeV. 

5) The Real Electron is firmly bonded to the proton as 105 MeV with 840 MeV, for which the proton itself is composed of 8 muons. The neutron is actually 945 MeV and is a proton + muon + some other particles. 

Kjaergaard's experiment is the first of what will become a cascade of chemistry experiments that all will prove the above 5 points of interest. 

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: 
 Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 
13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best 
 way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000 


H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory 

Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy. 

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor 

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard* 

Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 

Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231 
Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014 

https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d   


Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond | ScienceNordic 
sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-impossible-hydrogen-bond‎ 
Mar 25, 2015 ... Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of ... 

ScienceNordic 
Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond 
March 25, 2015 - 06:25 
By: Lise Brix 

Professor Henrik Kjærgaard and his colleagues have demonstrated that a new kind of hydrogen bond can occur between a hydrogen atom and a phosphorous atom. Pictured here is Kjærgaard in his lab at the University of Copenhagen. (Photo: University of Copenhagen)Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. 
"The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. "They form the basis of biological molecules and it’s for instance hydrogen bonds that determine the boiling point of water." 
He led the new study, which has been published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 

At Aarhus University, chemistry professor Jeppe Olsen is surprised.... 

(snipped) 
Olsen points out that not only have Kjærgaard and his colleagues found the new hydrogen bond in experiments -- they have also provided "an excellent explanation" of the discovery. 
The theory behind the discovery is that the atoms' charge is not uniformly distributed around their surface -- which is how simplified models say they do. 
“Our discovery emphasises that the charge around the surface of an atom is not uniform. If there was a positive charge all the way around the phosphorous atom this hydrogen bond wouldn't be possible. But it is. This must mean that the charge is not uniformly distributed around the atom -- you might say that there are tiny pockets of negative charge around the phosphorus atom," says Kjærgaard. 
The discovery of the special hydrogen bonds was made in experiments with infrared spectroscopy -- a method used by scientists to obtain knowledge about molecules and their vibrations by irradiating them with infrared light. 

AP writes:: Sorry, but the explanation of why this bonding exists is because there is no force of repulsion in Electricity Magnetism, only attraction. There is denial of same space occupancy which is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. 

But what will really force everyone in science to accept the idea that the real electron = 105MeV is when you break apart the hydrogen proton into a 840 MeV particle plus a 105 MeV muon. 

I suspect this has already happened in Poland-- 


Quoting 

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
1985 - 10 pages 

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
Abstract (Springer) 
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
--- end quote --- 

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:58 -0700
  Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:39 -0700
    Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:19 -0700
      Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 20:07 -0700
        Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 15:12 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-29 03:16 +0000
          Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-29 03:19 +0000
          Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 12:26 -0700
            Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 12:37 -0700
              Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:27 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 17:31 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:39 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 16:44 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 14:30 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 21:18 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:47 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:15 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:19 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:20 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:21 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 12:18 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:40 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 18:03 -0700
                Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 14:05 -0700
              page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 12:49 -0700
                Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 09:22 -0700
                Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:11 -0700

csiph-web